1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 54,840,000 won and the period from October 31, 2005 to October 19, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2005, Defendant B prepared a certificate of borrowing KRW 54,840,000 from the Plaintiff as of October 30, 2005 (hereinafter “certificate of borrowing”). The certificate of borrowing in this case includes Defendant C as a joint guarantor of the above loan, and Defendant C’s seal imprint was affixed in addition to Defendant C’s name, resident registration number, and address.

B. Defendant B, a joint and several surety on the same day, is the agent and the debtor of Defendant C, a notary public entrusted the certification of the instant loan certificate to an attorney-at-law in charge of notary public in charge of notary public who is a law firm, and was granted the certification under the certificate No. 5391

C. Defendant C is the birth of Defendant B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the loan amount pursuant to the loan certificate of this case against Defendant B and Defendant C, the principal debtor of the loan certificate of this case, and against this, Defendant B asserted that, inasmuch as he was declared bankrupt and immunity was granted in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Hadan3401, 201Ma3401, 201Ma3401, Defendant B could not accept the Plaintiff’s claim because he was exempted from liability for the above loan amount. Defendant C did not jointly and severally guarantee Defendant B’s obligation, and Defendant C did not contact the Plaintiff with the above loan amount for over 10 years. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be met.

3. Determination

A. (1) Of the loan certificates of this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the establishment of the authenticity of the part under Defendant B among the loan certificates of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the establishment of the authenticity of the part under Defendant C’s name, and since the seal imprint of the part under Defendant C is also based on Defendant C’s seal imprint, the authenticity of the part under

Shebly, Defendant C, who is any other person, shall be liable to the Doz.